The  League  of  Nations 

from 

The  Keltgious  and 
Moral  Standpoint 


JX 1975 
■9.1.43 


The  League  of  Nations 

FROM 

The  Religious  and 
Moral  Standpoint 


Reprinted  from 

Manufacturers  Record 

Exponent  of  America 
Baltimore,  Md. 


Copies  of  this  pamphlet  can 
be  obtained  at  the 
following  prices 
postpaid : 

Single  copy,  15c. 

25  copies  or  more, 

10c.  a copy 


The  Reason  for  This  Pamphlet 

THERE  are  two  classes  of  people  in  America  who  favor  the  adop- 
tion of  the  League  of  Nations  covenant  by  this  country.  One 
class  is  composed  of  those  who  favor  the  League  because  they 
have  imagined  that  it  was  a religious  duty  to  do  it,  believing  that  in 
some  way  the  League  would  save  the  world  from  wars.  The  other 
class  is  composed  of  those  who  favor  the  League  merely  because  of 
partisan  views,  and  because  it  has  been  advocated  by  the  leaders  of 
their  party.  This  class,  however,  we  believe  is  in  the  minority.  A 
large  majority  of  those  who  favor  the  League  are,  we  believe,  people 
who  have  been  made  to  believe  that  this  scheme  is  in  some  way  a 
great  religious  movement  for  the  safeguarding  of  the  world  from 
wars  and  that,  therefore,  it  must  be  regarded  as  Divine  in  its  origin. 

We  have  never  been  able  to  comprehend  how  thinking  men  could 
permit  themselves  to  take  that  view;  and  feeling  that  the  League  of 
Nations  covenant  has  no  Divine  origin,  nor  sanction,  and  that  it 
could  not  possibly  prevent  wars,  but  would  be  productive  of  wars, 
the  Manufacturers  Record  has  reprinted  in  pamphlet  form  the  state- 
ments of  a number  of  ministers  and  of  Mr.  Eugene  Thwing,  a noted 
publicist,  who,  discussing  the  question  from  the  moral  and  religious 
side,  show  conclusively  that  the  League  of  Nations  is  directly  con- 
trary to  the  teachings  of  Almighty  God.  They  tear  away  the 
claim  that  the  League  must  be  supported  on  moral  or  religious 
grounds,  or  on  the  ground  of  saving  the  world  from  wars,  and  leave 
not  a thread  of  that  garment  with  which  to  clothe  the  creature 
whose  creators  definitely  refused  to  recognize  the  Creator  as  the  over- 
ruling God  of  all  world  affairs.  American  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
then  in  France  made  a written  request  that  the  Peace  Conference  be 
opened  with  some  form  of  Divine  service  for  God’s  guidance.  This 
was  refused  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  time  available.  This 
information  was  first  given  to  the  Manufacturers  Record  by  one  of 
the  leading  bishops  of  America,  who  was  himself  one  of  the  signers 
of  that  document. 

Dr.  Cortland  Myers  of  Boston,  Bishop  Thomas  B.  Neely  of  Phila- 
delphia and  a number  of  other  ministers  have  strongly  emphasized 
their  opposition  on  religious  grounds  to  the  adoption  of  the  League 
of  Nations  covenant,  and  some|  of  the  statements  which  they  have  put 
forth,  the  article  by  Mr.  Thwing  and  a brief  editorial  against  the 
League  covenant  from  the  standpoint  of  our  country’s  welfare  will 
be  found  in  this  pamphlet.  Everyone  who  honestly  desires  to  study 
the  League  covenant,  whatever  may  be  his  or  her  views  on  the  sub- 
ject, will  find  this  presentation  of  interest. 


EDITOR  MANUFACTURERS  RECORD. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/leagueofnationsfOOunse 


The  League  of  Nations  as  a Moral  Issue 

By  Eugene  Thwing. 

“When  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  American  people  it  is  a very 
dangerous  thing  for  a party  to  get  on  the  wrong  side  of  a moral 
issue,  and  this  is  a moral  issue  much  more  than  it  is  a political 
issue." — The  New  York  Times,  July  27,  1919. 

Serious  fundamental  truth  lies  in  the  words  quoted  above 
from  an  editorial  in  the  New  York  Times  urging  the  League 
of  Nations.  The  American  people  as  a whole  prefer  right- 
eousness rather  than  iniquity  in  its  national  affairs  and  in  its 
dealings  with  other  nations.  Whatever  their  religious  creed, 
and  even  where  no  religious  creed  is  strictly  held,  the  American 
people  of  all  sects  and  all  denominations  believe  at  heart  that 
“righteousness  exalteth  a nation.”  “In  God  we  trust”  is  not 
an  empty  phrase,  and  no  political  party  can  safely  treat  it  with 
scorn  or  defiance. 

The  League  of  Nations,  as  now  proposed,  is  a moral  issue, 
above  all  else,  and  it  is  necessary  for  the  American  people  to 
know  why  and  how. 


I. 

The  League  of  Nations  is  a device  of  Man’s 
contrivance,  which  was  built  without  recog- 
nition of  God’s  governing  hand  in  the  affairs 
of  men;  it  was  constructed  without  any  pub- 
lic acknowledgment  of  Him,  and  without  any 
public  appeal  for  His  guidance. 

During  all  the  sessions  of  the  Peace  Conference  in  Paris, 
when  the  most  vital  and  fundamental  issues  of  world  policy 
were  being  considered ; when  the  most  serious  and  far-reaching 


Published  in  the  Manufacturers  Record  August  28,  1919. 

5 


problems  of  humanity  were  being  discussed,  amid  bitter  dis- 
putes and  clashing  interests ; when  the  delegates  of  many  na- 
tions were  groping  blindly  for  conclusions  which  would  mean 
life  or  death,  slavery  or  freedom,  misery  or  happiness  to  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  human  souls — not  once  was  any  appeal 
made  to  Almighty  God  for  light  and  guidance  in  their  coun- 
sels. Even  the  President  of  our  own  Christian  nation  went 
away  to  his  self-appointed  task  without  any  public  acknowl- 
edgment of  his  dependence  on  God,  nor  any  request  to  the 
people  of  America  to  seek  Divine  guidance  for  him  in  his 
mission.  No  religious  service  nor  public  prayer  of  any  kind 
was  allowed  in  connection  with  the  long,  troubled  conference. 
Earnest  written  petition  was  presented  by  Christians  outside 
the  conference  that  there  be  some  invocation  of  God’s  blessing 
and  guidance  in  the  work  to  be  done,  but  official  reply  was 
made  that  there  was  no  time  for  such  service  in  connection 
with  the  conference.  MAN  had  serious  work  to  do;  there  was 
no  time  to  bother  with  GOD! 

And  Almighty  God  turned  away  from  that  conference  in 
anger  at  that  and  set  His  curse  upon  it,  as  of  old,  in  these 
words:  “Woe  to  the  rebellious  children,  saith  the  Lord, 
THAT  TAKE  COUNSEL,  BUT  NOT  OF  ME.”  (Isaiah 
30:  1.) 

And  in  these  words : “Thus  saith  the  Lord : Cursed  be  the 
man  that  trusteth  in  man,  and  maketh  flesh  his  arm,  and  whose 
heart  departeth  from  the  Lord.”  (Jeremiah  17:  5.) 

And  so,  having  rejected  the  counsel  of  the  Almighty,  these 
delegates  of  many  nations  proceeded  to  build  their  own  devices, 
regardless  of  the  warning  that — 

"The  Lord  bringeth  the  counsel  of  the  nations  to  nought; 
He  maketh  the  devices  of  the  people  to  be  of  none  effect.” 
( Psalm  33  : 10.) 

They  constructed  an  edifice  of  their  own  contriving,  after 
many  bargains,  and  mutual  threats,  and  compromises  of  prin- 
ciples, and  violations  of  justice,  disbelieving  or  defying  the 
warning  that  “except  the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor 
in  vain  that  build  it”  And  they  ornamented  their  structure 
with  beautiful  words,  and  played  before  it  the  music  of  fine- 

6 


sounding  ideals,  making  it  “indeed  appear  beautiful  outward,'’ 
while  within  it  was  “full  of  dead  man’s  bones,  and  of  all  un- 
cleanness.” And  they  called  their  edifice  “The  League  of 
Nations,”  dedicated  to  the  “Peace  of  the  World.” 

And,  having  ears,  they  heard  not  the  awful  sound  which 
came  from  the  Eternal  Throne : 

“He  that  sitteth  in  the  heavens  shall  laugh ; the  Lord  shall 
have  them  in  derision.  Then  shall  He  speak  unto  them  in  His 
wrath,  and  vex  them  in  His  sore  displeasure.”  (Psalm  2 : 4-5-) 


II. 

The  League  of  Nations  is  in  direct  dis- 
obedience to  the  commands  of  God  as  given 
many  centuries  ago  to  His  people  when  He 
delivered  them  from  their  oppressors,  and  de- 
livered into  the  hands  of  His  people  those 
enemies  .of  His  who  had  defied  Him  and 
worked  abominations  in  His  sight. 

“When  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  deliver  them  before  thee,  then 
shalt  thou  smite  them,  and  utterly  destroy  them ; thou  shalt 
make  no  covenant  with  them,  nor  shew  mercy  to  them. 

“Neither  shalt  thou  make  marriages  with  them;  thy  daughter 
thou  shalt  not  give  unto  his  son,  nor  his  daughter  shalt  thou 
take  unto  thy  son. 

“For  they  will  turn  away  thy  son  from  following  Me,  that 
they  may  serve  other  gods ; so  will  the  anger  of  the  Lord  be 
kindled  against  you.”  (Deuteronomy  7:  2-4.) 

The  “utterly  destroy”  in  the  first  part  of  this  command,  evi- 
dently, in  the  light  of  what  follows,  does  not  mean  slaughter, 
nor  utter  destruction  of  property,  but  complete  destruction  of 
power,  and  complete  refusal  of  political  and  family  alliances. 
The  command  is  repeated  many  times,  in  various  forms,  em- 
phasizing the  need  of  separation  between  the  nations  whose 
God  is  the  Lord  and  the  nations  who  will  have  none  of  Him. 
In  the  New  Dispensation  the  command  was  made  even  more 
explicit : 

“Be  ye  not  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers ; for 


7 


what  fellowship  hath  righteousness  with  unrighteousness?  and 
what  communion  hath  light  with  darkness?”  (II  Cor.  6:  14.) 

Among  the  32  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  are  many 
pagan  nations.  Their  presence  in  the  Paris  Peace  Conference 
was  one  of  the  things,  no  doubt,  which  prevented  the  recogni- 
tion of  God  and  a turning  to  Him  for  guidance.  The  United 
States,  a Christian  nation,  with  only  one  vote  in  a total  of  32, 
would  certainly  be  ‘‘unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers,” 
in  disobedience  of  tbe  command  of  God.  The  offense  would 
be  increased  when  Germany,  that  great  worker  of  abomina- 
tions, is  admitted  as  a member  of  the  League  of  Nations  and 
a subscriber  to  and  beneficiary  of  the  “Covenant.”  No  good 
could  come  of  this  unequal  yoking  together,  but  only  evil,  as 
only  evil  has  come  during  the  first  period  of  that  yoke-fellow- 
ship. This  wish  and  the  vote  of  the  United  States  has  been 
set  at  naught  already  by  the  wish  and  the  vote  of  pagans.  It 
would  be  so  again  and  again. 

All  this  unequal  yoking  together  has  been  covered  up  with 
finely-spun  sentiment  and  unfulfillable  promises;  but  God’s 
people  are  warned  against  this  very  thing. 

“Let  no  man  deceive  you  with  vain  words,  for  because  of 
these  things  cometh  the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  dis- 
obedience. Be  not  ye  therefore  partakers  with  them,  and  have 
no  fellowship  with  the  unfaithful  works  of  darkness.”  (Eph. 
5:  6,  7,  11.) 

III. 

The  League  of  Nations  is  an  instrument  of 
evil  and  not  an  instrument  of  good. 

It  could  not  be  otherwise,  since,  in  its  making,  the  guidance 
of  the  God  of  Nations  was  not  sought  and  recognition  of  Him 
was  refused.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  since  it  yields  to,  even 
if  it  is  not  dominated  by,  pagan  influences. 

Its  promises  have  been  for  justice,  and  its  first  definite  acts 
have  been  acts  of  injustice.  Thus  already  the  world  has  been 
“deceived  with  vain  words.” 

In  the  concrete  example  of  Shantung,  the  League  of  Nations 
pledges  itself  to  “respect  and  preserve  as  against  external  ag- 

8 


gression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing  political  inde- 
pendence of  all  members  of  the  League,”  and  following  that 
pledge  it  appends  the  name  of  China  as  one  of  its  members  to 
whom  the  pledge  is  made.  Then,  after  formulating,  and  agree- 
ing to,  and  proudly  proclaiming  to  the  world  and  to  China 
this  beneficent  purpose  of  the  League,  the  very  men  who 
made  the  League  and  the  pledge  proceeded  to  tear  away  from 
China,  one  of  its  own  chosen  members,  a large  part  of  its 
most  important  territory  and  38,000,000  of  its  citizens,  with 
the  vast  interests  pertaining  to  them,  and  to  turn  them  all  over 
to  an  external  aggressor  who  demanded  them,  in  order  to  bribe 
that  pagan  aggressor  to  become  also  a member  of  that  same 
League  and  to  subscribe  to  that  same  pledge ! 

Can  any  more  grotesque  or  preposterous  act  of  injustice  and 
insincerity  be  imagined?  The  sponsors  of  the  League  of  Na- 
tions, solemnly  agreeing  to  protect  one  another  against  any 
despoiler,  deliberately  compound  with  such  a despoiler  the  com- 
plete violation  of  their  own  most  sacred  pldege  and  rob  one 
of  their  own  weaker  members  at  the  command  of  the  despoiler, 
in  order  that  this  very  despoiler  may  be  induced  to  come  into 
the  League  and  join  in  the  pledge  to  “respect  and  preserve  the 
territorial  integrity  and  political  independence  of  all  members”  ! 

What  respect  can  the  creators  of  the  League  have  for  their 
own  pledge  after  so  gross  a violation  in  the  very  act  of  making 
it  ? What  respect  will  that  nation  have  for  it  that  violated  it  as 
a condition  to  becoming  a party  to  it  ? Even  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  this  strange  contrivance  of  men  who  refused  to  seek  the 
blessing  and  guidance  of  Almighty  God  on  their  work,  He  was 
making  “the  devices  of  the  people  to  be  of  none  effect.” 

Our  own  President  yielded  to  this  act  of  gross  injustice 
against,  and  despoilation  of,  a friend.  He  acknowledges  that 
he  disapproved  and  tried  to  modify  it,  but  felt  compelled  to  con- 
sent to  the  wrong  in  order  to  get  Japan  into  the  League  of 
Nations.  What  pity  he  did  not  have  this  warning  blazoned  in 
letters  of  fire  before  his  eyes : “When  sinners  entice  thee,  con- 
sent thou  not !” 

The  time  to  remember  that  the  League  of  Nations  “is  a moral 
issue”  was  just  then,  when  temptations  to  do  wrong  for  seeming 


9 


political  advantages  assailed  the  maker  of  the  League.  The 
very  soul  of  the  League  was  bartered  away  at  the  moment  of 
its  birth  in  order  that  it  might  have  the  appearance  of  power. 
And  in  gaining  this  appearance  of  power  it  showed  that  it  pos- 
sessed the  very  essence  of  weakness  and  failure. 

Whatever  the  temptations,  whatever  the  threatenings,  what- 
ever the  troublesome  alternatives,  one  simple  rule,  one  final 
test,  would  have  settled  everything  with  honor  and  integrity 
and  established  the  League  of  Nations  upon  a solid  rock.  It 
is  the  rule  followed  by  and  emphasized  by  Thedore  Roosevelt : 
“The  choice  must  ever  be  in  favor  of  righteousness,  and  this 
whether  the  alternative  be  peace  or  whether  the  alternative  be 
war.  The  question  must  not  be  merely,  Is  it  to  be  peace  or 
war?  The  question  must  be,  Is  the  right  to  prevail?  Are  the 
great  laws  of  righteousness  to  be  fulfilled?  And  the  answer 
from  a strong,  virile  people  must  be  ‘yes,’  whatever  the  cost. 
We  scorn  the  man  who  would  not  stand  for  justice  though 
the  whole  world  come  in  arms  against  him.” 

Only  as  he  is  girded  and  guided  by  the  God  of  Righteousness 
can  any  man  be  strong  enough  and  wise  enough  to  stand  thus 
at  such  a time.  Only  then  can  he  translate  into  his  words  and 
acts  of  the  twentieth  century,  as  Roosevelt  did,  the  proud  con- 
fidence of  King  David  of  thirty  centuries  ago : 

“The  Lord  is  my  light  and  my  salvation;  whom  shall  I fear? 
The  Lord  is  the  strength  of  my  life;  of  whom  shall  I be  afraid? 

“When  the  wicked,  even  mine  enemies  and  my  foes,  came 
upon  me  to  eat  up  my  flesh,  they  stumbled  and  fell. 

“Though  an  host  should  encamp  against  me,  my  heart  shah 
not  fear ; though  war  should  rise  against  me,  in  this  will  I be 
confident.” 

IV. 

The  League  of  Nations  is  foredoomed  to 
utter  failure  because  of  its  disobedience  to 
God  and  its  own  inherent  weakness. 

Many  times,  through  the  centuries,  nations  have  tried  simi- 
lar plans,  and  all  have  failed.  Again  and  again  God  rebuked 
and  punished  Israel  and  Judah  for  seeking  to  strengthen  them- 


io 


selves  with  pagan  alliances  instead  of  with  obedience  to  Him. 
And  more  modern  history  contains  instances  of  leagues  of  na- 
tions, notably  the  one  that  was  formed  at  Aix-le-Chapelle  just 
a hundred  years  before  the  present  Peace  Conference  met  in 
Paris.  The  same  idealistic  pronouncements  then,  as  now, 
“seemed  to  promise  the  advent  of  the  golden  age.”  But  then, 
also,  the  league,  formed  “as  a sign  of  brotherly  good-will,”  was 
merely  a smiling  mask  behind  which  the  great  Powers  con- 
tinued their  own  alliances  “by  a secret  protocol,”  and  the 
scheme  came  to  naught. 

The  inherent  weakness  of  this  new  League  of  Nations  makes 
its  failure  certain,  if  even  its  actual  career  shall  begin.  This 
weakness  lies  in — 

1.  Its  composition  politically — its  membership  of  jealous 
rival  nations,  their  historical  enmities,  their  geographical  jeal- 
ousies, their  racial  and  religious  hostilities,  their  trade  rivalries 
and  jealousies. 

2.  Its  composition  morally — without  God  as  the  accepted 
Leader,  and  righteousness  as  the  governing  principle ; with  bit- 
ter hatred  in  many  hearts.  “Everyone,  from  the  least  even 
unto  the  greatest,  is  given  to  covetousness — everyone  dealeth 
falsely,”  and  “inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves.”  Even  if 
this  is  not  true  of  some  of  the  best,  it  is  true  undeniably  of 
others,  and  no  league  containing  such  elements  can  be  for 
long  a federation  of  peace  able  to  “substitute  the  court  of  law 
for  the  arbitrament  of  war.” 

3.  Its  certainty  of  disagreement  and  split.  No  vital  ques- 
tion of  magnitude  can  be  decided  to  the  satisfaction  of  all.  No 
strong  nation  will  allow  the  others  to  vote  against  it  with  im- 
punity. (Would  we?)  Secret  intrigues  and  realignments  al- 
ready are  going  on.  Expulsion  or  withdrawal  of  any  strong 
nation  is  sure  to  result  in  a stupendous  war. 

4.  Its  wrong  basis  of  power.  If  any  power  at  all  exists, 
it  is  the  power  of  strong  nations,  for  the  moment  acting  to- 
gether to  enforce  their  will  upon  weak  nations.  They  cannot 
enforce  their  will  upon  one  of  their  own  number.  They  have 
already  failed  to  do  anything  more  than  buy  one  another’s 
consent  by  the  giving  of  the  property  of  the  weak  in  return 


ii 


for  consent.  And  this  is  weakness,  not  power.  Certainly  no 
moral  power  has  been  asked  for  nor  conferred  upon  the  League 
by  the  God  from  whom  it  has  turned  away. 

5.  Its  inconsistency  and  insincerity.  It  plans  for  disarm- 
ament while  all  its  members  feverishly  increase  their  arma- 
ments, some  members  being  particularly  active  in  that  respect. 
Claims  are  made  in  behalf  of  the  League  which  are  far  from 
true.  Its  founders  and  advocates  profess  principles  to  govern 
its  operation  which  they  discard  in  its  formation.  It  is  urged 
as  a means  to  world  peace,  but  it  contains  the  threat  of  in- 
numerable wars.  It  is  offered  as  a protector  of  weak  nations 
against  strong  aggressors,  and  it  begins  by  helping  the  strong 
aggressor  to  ravish  its  weaker  neighbor.  Therefore,  “be  not 
deceived,  God  is  not  mocked;  for  whatsoever  a man  (or  a 
nation)  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.” 

The  whole  scheme  of  the  Godless  League  is  summed  up  in 
I Thessalonians  5 : 3 : “When  they  shall  say  ‘peace  and 
safety,’  then  sudden  destruction  cometh  upon  them,  as  travail 
upon  a woman  with  child;  and  they  shall  not  escape.”  This 
was  true  in  1914;  it  is  true  in  1919.  The  new  forces  of  “sudden 
destruction”  are  in  preparation  at  this  very  moment,  some  of 
them  in  the  plain  sight  of  men,  and  some  of  them  hidden  away 
in  the  dark.  Some  of  the  preparers  are  in  the  League,  and 
some  are  without,  scheming  to  get  in,  so  that  they  may  carry 
on  their  preparations  more  expeditiously  and  effectively. 

The  superficiality  and  futility  of  the  whole  glib  and  glitter- 
ing program,  with  all  its  ceremony  and  theatrical  display,  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  sad  lament  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah:  “They 
have  healed  the  hurt  of  the  daughter  of  my  people  slightly, 
saying,  peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace.” 

The  League  of  Nations  is  only  a splendid  appearing  struc- 
ture, with  no  real  living  soul  to  hold  its  form  together.  It  is 
an  offense  to  the  Living  God.  It  will  crumble  and  disappear 
when  the  shouting  and  the  tumult  die.  God  keep  America  out 
of  it ! God  turn  the  hearts  of  Americans  to  seek  His  guidance 
and  accept  His  leadership ! 

“The  counsel  of  the  Lord  standeth  forever.  Blessed  is  the 
nation  whose  God  is  the  Lord.” 


12 


Ministers  Warn  Nation  Against  League 
of  Nations  as  Contrary  to  God’s  Word 

Dr.  Cortland  Myers,  pastor  of  the  Tremont  Temple  of  Bos- 
ton, is  one  of  the  foremost  ministers  of  America.  It  has  been 
said  that  he  is  one  of  the  only  four  ministers  in  the  United 
States  whose  preaching  can  always  be  depended  upon  to  fill 
the  Ocean  Grove  (N.  J.)  auditorium,  which  has  a seating 
capacity  of  10,000  or  over.  The  Asbury  Park  Press  of  August 
23,  in  a column  and  a half  report  of  Dr.  Myers’  sermon  of  the 
preceding  day,  in  which  he  referred  to  the  League  of  Nations 
Covenant,  said : 

“Dr.  Myers  * * * deplored  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  God 
either  in  the  treaty  or  among  the  Peace  Conference  attendants  and 
apparently  no  thought  on  the  part  of  anyone  in  regard  to  offering 
prayer  for  its  safe  conclusion.  Dr.  Myers  was  making  the  point  that 
the  nation  that  forgets  God  will  go  down  in  ashes.  This  applies  to 
America,  he  said,  as  to  any  nation  that  takes  no  cognizance  of  the 
Almighty,  and  is  behind  every  war  and  every  calamity.  This  great 
nation  of  the  Western  world  he  believes  is  at  present  in  deadly  peril, 
and  people  who  dismiss  the  lessons  of  past  nations  lightly  from  mind 
are  merely  fooling  themselves.  The  word  is  God’s  and  must  stand 
true,  whether  applying  to  modern  nations  and  cities  or  those  of  past 
centuries. 

“Failure  to  recognize  God  among  the  allied  representatives  to  the 
Peace  Conference,  Dr.  Myers  continued,  has  resulted  in  the  League 
of  Nations  being  almost  forgotten  and  the  treaty  of  peace  not  worth 
the  paper  written  on.  The  League  of  Nations,  he  said,  has  been  kicked 
to  England  for  an  election,  then  to  France  for  an  election,  and  now  to 
America  for  another  election,  all  part  of  a huge  political  game.  The 
peace  treaty  he  branded  as  an  infidel  document,  since  there  has  never 
been  a bit  of  information  forthcoming  from  any  quarter  to  the  effect 
that  prayer  was  offered  for  its  ultimate  acceptance  by  the  nations.” 

Voicing  the  same  thought  as  that  expressed  by  Dr.  Cortland 


Published  in  the  Manufacturers  Record  September  2,  1920. 

13 


Myers  is  a letter  to  the  Manufacturers  Record  from  Rev. 
John  J.  Wicker,  pastor  of  the  Leigh  Street  Baptist  Church  of 
Richmond,  in  which  he  says : 

“To  my  mind,  the  ‘League  of  Nations’  is  one  of  the  most  impos- 
sible things  ever  undertaken  in  the  history  of  the  world.  It  is  estrange, 
indeed,  that  any  minister  of  the  Gospel  or  student  of  the  Bible  should 
give  such  a league  his  endorsement.  Aside  from  the  direct  teaching  of 
the  Bible,  which  has  been  so  aptly  quoted  by  Mr.  Eugene  Thwing  and 
published  by  the  Manufacturebs  Record,  the  whole  scheme  of  the 
League  of  Nations  is  thoroughly  impracticable. 

“Peace  is  impossible  and  every  man  must  realize  this  unless  he  is 
blinded  by  a foolish  idealism  making  the  wish  for  peace  father  to  the 
thought  and  issuing  in  a manufactured  ‘League  of  Nations’  that  can 
never  obtain  except  in  mere  words. 

“The  President  of  the  United  States  in  his  address  before  the  Meth- 
odist Centenary  said : ‘Let  no  man  suppose  that  progress  can  be 
divorced  from  religion  or  that  there  is  any  platform  written  for  the 
ministers  of  reform  other  than  the  platform  written  in  the  utterances 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.’  Where,  oh,  where  did  you,  Mr.  President, 
pigeon-hole  this  splendid  utterance  when  you  sat  down  at  the  table 
around  which  the  platform  for  ‘The  League  of  Nations’  was  drafted? 
At  that  table  God  was  refused  a seat.  The  presiding  officer  of  that 
notable  body  does  not  believe  in  God,  and  around  the  table  sat  repre- 
sentatives of  the  heathen  and  idolatrous  nations  of  the  earth.  In  our 
own  country  a little  while  ago  there  was  a gigantic  effort  at  a great 
Interchurch  Movement.  The  Christian  denominations  who  had  some 
real  conviction  and  declined  to  go  in  this  movement  ‘put  over’  their 
own  drives  in  triumphant  success.  The  League  of  Churches,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  a dismal  failure.  If  a league  of  Christian  churches 
cannot  succeed,  how,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  will  a league  made 
up  of  a conglomerate  mass  of  humanity,  representing  all  religions  and 
no  religion,  covering  the  whole  world,  successfully  put  over  the 
‘League  of  Nations’? 

“A  few  days  ago  the  Democratic  candidate  for  President  of  the 
United  States  announced  that  if  he  were  elected,  ‘The  League  of 
Nations’  would  become  effective  after  March  4,  1921,  and  in  the  same 
speech  this  same  candidate  gave  a pledge  that  no  American  soldier 
would  ever  be  sent  overseas  to  fight  without  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States.  And  Vet  the  ‘League  of  Nations’  proposes 
to  put  this  whole  matter  in  the  hands  of  a small  body  of  men,  repre- 
senting the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  the  United  States  is  called  upon 
in  advance  to  pledge  its  support  to  the  decisions  of  this  foreign  body! 

14 


“The  League  of  Nations  cannot  get  along  without  God.  God  has 
been  refused  recognition  by  the  League.  If  the  Christian  people  of 
this  country  would  read  the  Bible  from  the  book  of  Joshua  to  the 
book  of  Job,  they  would  find  how  God  deals  with  nations.  This  history 
shows  that  no  nation,  howsoever  strong,  ever  succeeded  without  God, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  no  nation,  howsoever  weak,  ever  suffered 
defeat  when  they  called  upon  Almighty  God.  Now,  how  the  ministers 
of  this  country  can  reconcile  their  support  of  the  League  of  Nations 
with  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  especially  the  con- 
spicuous historical  examples  of  how  God  has  figured  in  the  affairs  and 
destiny  of  nations,  is  beyond  me. 

“Nobody  wants  war.  Every  man  would  rejoice  in  peace,  but  so  long 
as  sin,  idolatry,  greed  and  selfishness  reign  in  this  old  world,  no  League 
of  Nations  nor  any  other  device  of  men  can  stay  the  devastating  hand 
of  war.  If  the  Christian  people  of  this  country  want  peace,  let  them 
listen  to  the  Prince  of  Peace  and  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  His 
Gospel  to  every  creature. 

“ ‘Some  trust  in  horses  and  some  in  chariots,  but  our  trust  shall  be 
in  the  living  God.’  Never  in  the  world’s  history  has  the  State  fought 
the  battles  of  the  Church  but  that  the  Church  was  the  loser  in  the  long 
run  of  far  more  than  it  gained.  Ministers  and  Christian  people  who 
resort  to  the  League  of  Nations  for  the  accomplishment  of  Christian 
ends  are  simply  falling  into  the  same  old  death  trap  that  has  poisoned 
and  disappointed  Christianity  in  every  age.  Men  nor  nations  will 
never  do  right  until  they  are  good.  And  they  will  never  be  good  with- 
out God,  and  they  will  never  get  God  into  their  hearts  by  any  other 
device  than  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 

“When  Joshua  led  the  people  into  the  promised  land,  God  com- 
manded them,  saying:  ‘Ye  shall  make  no  league  with  the  inhabitants 
of  this  land ; ye  shall  throw  down  their  altars.’  The  issue  was  a plain 
one.  They  had  the  choice  of  making  a league  of  nations  or  preaching 
the  Gospel  of  God.  To  their  own  destruction,  they  chose  the  former. 
Today  the  Christian  Church  has  before  it  the  same  issue.  Let  us  hope 
that  sacred  as  well  as  all  other  history  will  not  be  thrown  into  the 
junk,  but  that  we  will  profit  by  centuries  filled  with  conspicuous  ex- 
amples, demonstrating  that  the  hope  of  the  world  is  not  in  a league 
with  men,  but  a league  with  God.’’ 


15 


l 


A Minister  Gives  Reasons  for  Opposing 
the  League  of  Nations 

DECLARES  THAT  PATRIOTISM,  REASON,  HISTORY, 
EXPERIENCE,  AND  FINALLY  THE  BIBLE,  ARE  ALL 
AGAINST  “THE  MOST  INIQUITOUS  SCHEME  EVER 
DEVISED,"  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  AS  PRO- 
POSED. 

By  Joseph  Judson  Taylor,  D.D.,  Leaksville,  N.  C.* 

["I  sincerely  hope  you  may  be  successful  with  others  in 
keeping  us  out  of  what  I conceive  to  be  the  most  iniquitous 
scheme  ever  devised,  the  League  of  Nations."  So  wrote 
Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Judson  Taylor  to  the  editor  of  the  Manu- 
facturers Record  in  recent  private  correspondence.  We 
present  herewith  an  elaboration  of  Dr.  Taylor’s  reasons 
why  America  should  not  join  the  League  of  Nations  as  pro- 
posed. 

Dr.  Taylor  is  a distinguished  Baptist  minister  and  pub- 
licist, a native  of  Virginia,  educated  at  Southern  Baptist 
colleges,  and  ordained  a Baptist  minister  in  1876.  He  has 
had  a long  and  notable  career  in  the  ministry,  as  an  edu- 
cator, and  as  a writer  on  religious  topics.  His  present  ad- 
dress is  Leaksville,  N.  C. — Editor  Manufacturers  Record.] 

This  subject  is  an  issue  before  the  people  at  this  time.  There 
is  no  known  reason  why  it  should  not  be  considered  candidly, 
and  as  far  as  possible  without  partisan  bias.  The  writer  is  a 
Democrat,  reared  and  educated  in  old  Virginia.  He  had  14 
uncles  in  the  Confederate  service,  and  some  of  them  never  got 
back.  He  was  in  school,  and  was  not  registered  for  the  Han- 
cock and  English  campaign,  but  he  voted  for  Cleveland  in  1884 
and  in  his  subsequent  races ; also  for  Bryan,  and  for  Parker, 
and  for  Wilson  in  succession.  The  league  question,  however. 

•Part  of  the  material  in  this  article  is  borrowed  from  the  writer's  new 
book  entitled  “The  God  of  War,”  copyrighted  and  published  by  the  Fleming 
H.  Kevell  Co.  It  cannot  be  used  without  permission. 

Published  in  the  Manufacturers  Record  August  26,  1920. 

l6 


is  larger  than  any  party.  It  concerns  the  entire  people.  With 
the  utmost  respect  for  such  as  hold  a different  view,  the  writer 
is  opposed  to  the  league  in  toto,  and  he  here  offers  some  of  the 
reasons  for  his  opposition  as  they  occur  to  him. 

i.  Patriotism  is  against  the  league.  If  some  man  of  repute 
could  get  a hearing  to  plead  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  in  favor  of  the  British  crown,  or  for  its 
subordination  in  any  way  to  British  authority  over  American 
activities,  he  could  offer  some  considerations  in  favor  of  the 
scheme.  He  could  plead  the  common  ties  that  bind  a daughter 
to  her  mother.  So  far  as  ruling  influences  are  concerned,  he 
could  plead  a common  language,  common  traditions,  common 
ideals  in  matters  of  justice  and  religion,  and  common  hopes 
for  the  final  freedom  and  happinessness  of  all  mankind.  He 
could  point  to  the  peace  and  dignity  of  Canada,  as  she  enjoys 
the  freedom  of  local  autonomy  and  yet  has  the  sense  of  safety 
arising  out  of  her  connection  with  a vast  empire  on  whose 
dominions  the  sun  never  sets.  He  could  recount  Britain’s 
present  rule  over  all  the  seas,  and  with  some  show  of  reason  he 
could  predict  that  with  all  the  vast  resources  of  North  America 
joined  with  England’s  maritime  power,  Anglo-Saxon  ideas 
could  govern  the  world.  After  weighing  all  the  advantages  of 
such  a scheme,  would  not  every  true  American  subject  reject 
it  with  disdain  ? Would  not  the  unfortunate  proponent  of  such 
a plan  be  branded  as  a traitor,  or  else  treated  as  a clown  and 
laughed  out  of  countenance  ? 

There  is  no  way  to  maintain  independence  and  at  the  same 
time  subordinate  it.  Such  a proposal  violates  a fundamental 
law  of  logic.  What  then  must  be  thought  of  the  patriotism, 
or  of  the  intellectual  acumen,  of  men  who  seriously  propose  in 
any  way  to  subordinate  American  independence  to  an  agglom- 
eration of  foreign  nations,  different  in  race,  in  history,  in  lan- 
guage, in  cultural  advancement,  in  governmental  ideals,  in 
religious  creeds,  and  in  everything  that  enters  into  national 
life?  On  so  grave  a question  men  ought  to  act  intelligently, 
and  not  be  guided  by  vapid  sentiment  or  political  prejudice. 
Others  will  follow  their  own  judgment  or  their  fancies,  as  the 


17 


case  may  be.  It  is  their  right  to  choose  their  own  way ; but 
with  the  light  before  him,  if  need  be,  the  writer  will  forsake 
the  dearest  friend  he  has  on  earth  rather  than  betray  the  land 
of  his  birth  by  supporting  a proposal  that  surrenders  to  the 
control  of  foreign  nations  any  part  of  her  blood-bought  lib- 
erties. 

2.  Reason  is  against  the  league.  If  war  is  wrong,  the  wrong 
cannot  be  obliterated  or  allayed  by  contract.  The  principle 
underlying  such  a proposal  is  false.  If  a thousand  merchants 
were  to  enter  into  a league  not  to  cheat  their  customers,  their 
action  would  be  an  open  confession  that  they  were  a thousand 
thieves  at  heart.  If  a hundred  lawyers  were  to  league  up  in 
a covenant  not  to  swindle  their  clients,  the  fact  itself  would 
be  a proclamation  that  they  were  shysters  who  could  not  be 
trusted  to  do  right.  If  a company  of  matrons  were  to  covenant 
together  not  to  betray  their  husbands,  their  foolish  conduct 
would  be  a scandal  and  would  engender  domestic  doubts  in 
each  of  their  homes. 

Right  and  wrong  are  not  matters  of  contingency.  At  this 
point  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  lost  his  way  and  turned  into  a blind 
alley.  His  Mr.  Britling  had  no  fixed  principles.  He  was  an 
ardent  pacifist — only  when  there  was  no  occasion  for  being 
anything  else.  He  was  for  peace  conditionally,  his  convictions 
depending  entirely  on  others.  Was  he  for  truth  and  soberness, 
honesty  or  any  other  virtue  conditionally?  His  answer  would 
be  an  indignant  protest,  and  yet  he  sees  no  inconsistency  in 
being  against  what  he  calls  the  wickedness  of  war  only  on  con- 
dition that  other  people  are.  And  such  inconsistency  underlies 
the  entire  structure  of  trying  to  achieve  peace  by  contract. 

The  official  draft  of  the  proposed  covenant  undertakes  “to 
achieve  international  peace  and  security  by  the  acceptance  of 
obligations  not  to  resort  to  war,”  but  the  entire  document,  from 
preamble  to  signatures,  offers  no  reason  whatever  for  achiev- 
ing peace  and  not  resorting  to  war ! It  nowhere  commends 
peace,  neither  does  it  condemn  war.  In  fact,  it  is  the  product 
of  victorious  war  lords,  whose  hands  are  red  with  blood.  It 
utterly  lacks  the  marks  of  sincerity  on  the  part  of  those  who 

18 


have  put  it  forth.  Inadvertently  or  in  a moment  of  reaction 
against  camouflage  and  deception,  President  Wilson  himself 
declared  in  his  first  public  address  after  getting  back  from  Ver- 
sailles that  it  was  a league  for  war.  Why,  then,  shall  anybody 
be  deceived  about  the  matter?  The  league  rests  on  a false 
principle,  and  it  secures  its  popularity  chiefly  as  it  is  misunder- 
stood. For  no  true  American  could  possibly  favor  it  if  he 
understood  that  it  binds  him  and  his  children  unborn  to  share 
the  age-long  embroilments  of  foreign  lands. 

The  same  lack  of  fixed  principle  underlying  the  league  is 
shown  also  in  the  conduct  of  some  of  its  champions.  Men  who 
are  today  denouncing  the  wickedness  of  war  only  a few  months 
ago  were  as  earnestly  proclaiming  the  righteousness  of  war, 
the  war  they  wanted.  Ministers  who,  like  the  writer,  have 
never  read  a treatise  on  international  law  in  their  lives,  have 
felt  quite  competent  to  lecture  Senators  on  their  duties  con- 
cerning the  so-called  league  for  peace ; and  yet  less  than  two 
years  ago  the  same  men  were  preaching  war  from  their  pulpits, 
and  in  some  cases  were  promising  the  victims  of  war  salvation 
from  sin  and  rest  in  Heaven.  In  no  case  have  they  professed 
a change  of  view ; they  have  simply  swapped  sides,  as  if  they 
were  more  anxious  to  be  popular  than  to  be  true  guides  for 
their  people. 

3.  History  is  against  the  league,  and  the  past  gives  it  no 
support.  Centuries  before  Jesus  was  born  Corinth  formed  a 
League  of  Public  Peace  and  set  Philip,  and  later  Alexander,  at 
its  head.  Soon  the  high  contracting  parties  felt  that  their  lib- 
erties were  endangered,  and  they  repudiated  the  league.  They 
found  it  easier  to  get  in  than  to  get  out.  War  ensued.  Alex- 
ander won,  and  the  effort  to  get  out  became  a pretext  for  un- 
common cruelties.  Many  of  the  conquered  were  brutally  mur- 
dered, and  the  remnants  were  sold  into  slavery  worse  than 
death.  If  there  was  any  sincerity  in  making  the  league,  its 
proponents  got  only  disappointment  for  their  pains. 

Rawlinson  mentions  a League  of  the  Endless  Peace  negoti- 
ated between  Rome  and  Persia.  It  cost  more  than  five  tons  of 
gold.  Peace  by  contract  comes  high.  It  seems  that  our  famous 


19 


covenant  cost  America  alone  some  $400  a word  before  it  got 
home,  to  say  nothing  of  subsequent  costs.  The  piper  must  be 
paid.  And  the  boasted  Endless  Peace  lasted  just  eight  years. 
The  hypocrites  who  enacted  the  sham  knew  that  they  were 
deceiving  the  people  and  getting  their  gold  for  naught. 

If  there  is  any  sacred  political  covenant  known  on  earth, 
surely  it  is  our  American  Constitution.  It  was  born  out  of  the 
travail  of  great  souls.  It  was  christened  in  the  blood  of 
patriots.  The  majority  of  the  States  in  the  Union  came  under 
its  sacred  spell  one  by  one,  as  children  are  born  into  the  house- 
hold. In  the  purity  of  youth  every  native-born  citizen  comes 
to  its  privileges  with  an  oath  on  his  lips,  swearing  by  the  God 
of  his  fathers  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  to  support  its  flag. 
And  yet  a few  decades  ago  noble  men  by  the  thousand  felt  that 
there  were  obligations  higher  than  those  expressed  in  any 
human  covenant,  which  justified  them  in  renouncing  their  oaths 
and  repudiating  their  covenant  and  taking  up  arms. 

The  very  covenant  under  consideration  has  been  put  to  the 
test  and  found  wanting.  Whether  freely  or  not,  more  than  a 
score  of  nations  have  adopted  the  covenant ; but  the  pathetic 
fact  remains  that  they  have  failed  “to  achieve  peace  by  accept- 
ing obligations  not  to  resort  to  war,”  and  are  fighting  like  fury, 
just  as  before. 

In  the  face  of  these  lessons  from  history,  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, local  and  foreign,  it  is  passing  strange  that  honest  Ameri- 
cans can  profess  a reasonable  hope  that  an  alien  covenant  writ- 
ten by  victorious  war  lords  and  urged  upon  enfeebled  nations, 
different  in  race  and  religion  and  in  all  their  schemes  of  life, 
can  have  any  binding  force.  If  by  the  spirit  of  party  loyalty 
and  the  lure  of  beautiful  fancies  a majority  of  the  American 
people  could  be  induced  to  abandon  the  traditions  of  a glorious 
past  and  take  up  this  league,  why  should  they  so  use  their 
power?  Policies  can  be  changed  by  majorities,  but  principles 
cannot.  Why  should  voters  despise  the  convictions  of  their 
fellow-citizens  and  force  them  to  league  up  with  Huns  and 
Hottentots  and  what  not  for  the  partisan  purpose  of  testing 
anew  a scheme  that  all  history  has  shown  to  be  abortive  and 


20 


vain?  Would  it  be  kind?  Would  it  be  just?  Would  it  not 
incite  inevitable  strife  and  discontent?  Why  make  the  experi- 
ment ? 

4.  Experience  is  against  the  league.  One  of  the  fathers  of 
American  independence  said  his  path  was  lighted  only  by  the 
lamp  of  experience,  and  such  light  we  have  had.  Impelled  by  a 
sense  of  duty  and  guided  by  our  ablest  men,  we  did  our  part 
in  the  recent  turmoil  abroad.  This  is  no  place  to  discuss  the 
matter.  Every  man  is  entitled  to  his  views.  Whatever  we  got 
out  of  it,  the  question  is  whether  we  want  it  again.  All  parties 
agree  that  the  league  binds  us  to  the  same  sort  of  thing,  when- 
ever the  occasion  shall  arise.  Do  we  wish  to  be  bound  ? 

It  is  said  that  a burned  child  dreads  the  fire.  A child  is  able 
to  learn  by  experience.  Is  the  American  voter  less  than  a child 
in  understanding?  Does  he  want  any  more  of  what  he  has 
had  in  foreign  embroilments  ? After  all  the  centuries  a horse 
still  runs  into  a burning  barn.  The  poor  dumb  beast  learns 
nothing  by  experience.  The  average  American  voter  is  not  as 
dull  as  a beast  of  the  stall.  He  learns  by  experience,  and  his 
experience  does  not  favor  binding  himself  and  his  children  to 
bear  the  brunt  of  foreign  wars. 

5.  The  Bible  is  against  the  league.  Some  partisan  politi- 
cians and  preachers  with  partisan  bias  have  had  a good  deal  to 
say  about  the  Christianity  of  the  league.  Not  one  of  them, 
whether  politician  or  preacher,  has  quoted  a single  passage 
from  the  Bible  or  a single  sentence  from  the  league  covenant 
in  proof  of  what  he  has  said.  Not  one;  no,  not  one.  Voters, 
had  you  thought  of  that?  The  reason  is  plain.  There  is  no 
such  passage  in  either  document.  The  thing  cannot  be  done. 

The  idea  of  a league  to  achieve  peace  is  distinctly  Godless  in 
origin.  In  his  day  Immanuel  Kant,  born  in  1724,  was  the 
leading  agnostic  in  Germany.  He  advocated  a league  of  nations 
to  regulate  international  affairs.  Jeremy  Bentham  urged  the 
same  thing  in  England.  He  proposed  a congress  of  deputies 
chosen  from  the  nations  to  adjust  their  differences,  and  pre- 
scribed as  a preliminary  condition  the  reduction  of  armaments 
and  the  surrender  of  colonies  by  European  nations.  Both  Kant 
and  Bentham  followed  Thomas  Hobbes,  a deist  of  the  seven- 


21 


teenth  century,  who  did  as  much  to  discredit  religion  and 
morality  as  any  man  of  his  time.  Mr.  Hobbes,  however,  was 
too  frank  and  honest  to  offer  his  scheme  in  the  name  of  democ- 
racy. In  truth,  he  was  obliged  to  confess  that  it  meant  subjec- 
tion rather  than  freedom,  a ruling  class  and  a ruled  class,  over- 
lords  and  underlings.  It  had  no  place  for  the  rule  of  the  peo- 
ple. Naturally  it  would  breed  arrogance  and  oppression  on  the 
part  of  the  overlords.  Instead  of  ending  war  it  would  put  the 
war-making  power  into  the  hands  of  war  lords.  The  more  the 
people  understood  it  the  more  they  disliked  it,  and  in  the  end 
they  rejected  both  Hobbes  and  his  league.  The  newest  Godless 
effort  will  go  the  same  way  if  the  people  come  to  understand. 
They  will  not  willingly  sacrifice  their  sacred  rights  when  they 
know  the  truth. 

The  Bible  speaks  in  no  uncertain  terms.  Of  old  there  were 
various  nations  on  the  earth — Philistines,  Girgashites,  Hittites, 
Jebusites  and  what  not,  quite  as  good  as  the  Huns,  the  Japs,  the 
Turks,  the  Mexicans  and  others  of  this  day,  and  God  said  to 
such  as  were  willing  to  hear : “Thou  shalt  make  no  league  with 
them.”  The  command  was  as  clear  as  any  law  in  the  Deca- 
logue. It  was  repeated  with  solemn  warning,  God  stopping  to 
explain  that  such  a league  would  bring  them  into  trouble.  By 
deception  they  were  led  to  disobey,  and  it  was  the  beginning 
of  the  end,  as  every  honest  student  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
bound  to  admit.  The  second  chapter  of  Judges  contains  part 
of  the  pathetic  record  of  disobedience  and  disaster. 

George  Washington  got  wisdom  from  the  Word  of  God,  and 
he  warned  his  beloved  people  against  entangling  alliances 
abroad.  And  it  is  confidently  believed  that  the  average  Ameri- 
can voter  cannot  be  beguiled  into  repudiating  the  Word  of  God, 
and  his  own  recent  experiences,  and  the  voice  of  history,  and 
the  teaching  of  reason,  and  the  dictates  of  patriotism.  It  is 
confidently  believed  that  the  average  American  citizen  does  not 
feel  that  he  is  called  to  regulate  the  whole  earth.  It  is  confi- 
dently believed  that  the  average  American  voter  has  sense 
enough  to  attend  to  his  own  business  and  let  other  people’s 
business  alone. 


22 


Bishop  Neely’s  Review  a Ringing  Call 
To  Americanism 

Bishop  Thomas  Benjamin  Neely,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  author  of 
“Neely’s  Parliamentary  Practice,”  has  done  the  American 
nation  a great  service  in  writing  a complete  review  and  analysis 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  under  the  title  “The  League,  the 
Nation’s  Danger.” 

Bishop  Neely  is  one  of  the  foremost  ministers  of  the  great 
Methodist  denomination,  a man  widely  known  for  his  learning 
and  his  piety.  In  a book  of  238  pages  he  has  presented  a mas- 
terly analysis  of  every  point  that  can  be  raised  in  regard  to 
the  League  of  Nations  and  its  effect  on  this  country.  So  many 
people,  ministers  and  laymen,  in  their  intense  religious  zeal  for 
peace  on  earth,  have  been  so  completely  misled  by  the  glittering 
generalities  that  have  been  put  forth  to  the  effect  that  the 
League  of  Nations  would  prevent  war,  and  that  we  must  be 
willing  to  sacrifice  our  sovereignty,  if  need  be,  in  order  to  bring 
about  this  happy  state  of  everlasting  peace,  that  it  is  of  special 
importance  that  a minister  of  Bishop  Neely’s  position  has  so 
overwhelmingly  shown  that  the  League  of  Nations  is  neither 
religious  nor  moral  and  that  it  would  be  provocative  of  war 
rather  than  of  peace. 

He  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  League  of  Nations  as  pro- 
posed is  super-government,  with  its  own  capital,  its  own  offi- 
cials, which  will  have  the  right  to  call  upon  all  members  for  the 
money  and  the  soldiers  needed  to  maintain  its  operations,  and 
he  says : 

“So  this  peace  making  and  peace  preserving  League  is  a war-like 
and  war-making  machine,  even  to  the  point  of  fighting  its  own  mem- 
ber nations,  even  before  they  have  fired  a gun  or  made  an  advance. 

“The  League  itself  is  a fighting  mechanism  deliberately  put  together 
to  fight,  and  yet  professing  to  be  a peace-making  arrangement. 

Published  in  the  Manufacturers  Record  August  28,  1919. 

2.3 


“The  proposed  League  of  Nations  cannot  prevent  war,  and  that  fact 
should  be  recognized  and  admitted,  and  many  do  recognize  this  truth. 
Further,  it  should  be  seen  that  it  is  not  based  on  the  idea  of  no  war, 
but  on  the  probability  if  not  the  certainty  of  war,  and  so  the  League’s 
constitution  gives  the  League  functions  for  declaring  and  carrying  on 
war,  and  empowers  the  League  organization  to  call  upon  every  nation 
in  the  League  to  respond  by  the  support  of  their  armies  and  navies, 
which  they  are  under  obligations  to  do,  and  these  wars  are  to  be  under 
the  conduct  of  the  executive  management  of  the  League,  so  the  League 
is  an  arrangement  for  making  and  carrying  on  war,  and  consequently 
for  directing  and  controlling  the  subordinate  nations  in  the  League 
and  their  affairs  in  many  ways.  Thus  the  facts  show  that  the  League 
will  not  prevent  war,  but  may  make  war.” 

* * * “It  would  be  a safer  prophecy  to  say  that  the  League, 

if  formed,  would  bring  on  war,  and  if  the  United  States  is  in  it  this 
country  will  be  kept  busy  at  the  dictation  of  the  League  fighting 
where  it  has  no  concern  and  paying  its  billions  for  League  operations.” 

Discussing  the  super-government  which  is  to  be  formed,  the 
most  tremendous  oligarchy  ever  conceived  in  the  world’s  his- 
tory, Bishop  Neely  points  out  that  if  the  League  of  Nations 
should  ever  materialize,  “the  council  of  nine  is  likely  to  become 
the  greatest  dictator  of  the  ages,  and  it  is  likely  to  be  dominated 
by  some  one  individual  who  may  swell  into  the  proportions  of 
an  imperial  despot,  and  by  whose  inquisitions  and  mechanisms 
become  a disturber  of  peace  and  fill  the  world  with  a malign 
influence  that  will  not  tend  to  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
humanity,  but  in  its  way  be  as  fatal  as  the  poisonous  gases 
introduced  in  the  war  that  has  just  closed. 

“To  enter  this  League  of  Nations,”  said  Bishop  Neely, 
“would  destroy  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  for  it 
would  make  the  nation  subordinate  to  the  League  and  the  little 
oligarchy  that  would  direct  its  affairs,  an  oligarchy  composed 
of  a little  handful  of  persons  and  not  even  the  nations  them- 
selves. Other  nations  in  the  League  would  be  dictating  to  the 
United  States,  and  the  United  States  would  have  lost  its  own 
free  will  and  its  old  independence  in  decision  and  action.” 

It  would  be  impossible  in  the  brief  space  of  an  editorial 
review  to  give  even  a hint  of  the  suggestion  of  the  importance 
of  Bishop  Neely’s  “The  League,  the  Nation’s  Danger.”  We 
take  it  for  granted  that  every  man  who  is  not  moved  wholly  by 


24 


partisan  affiliation,  every  man  who  is  not  willing  to  see  his 
country  destroyed  rather  than  his  party,  or  that  party  lose  out 
in  the  political  contest — and  there  are  persons  of  this  kind  in 
both  parties — will  wish  to  read  Bishop  Neely’s  book.  There  is 
no  possible  answer  which  can  be  given  to  its  facts  and  its  argu- 
ments. We,  therefore,  urge  every  reader  of  the  Manufactur- 
ers Record,  regardless  of  what  may  be  his  views  for  or  against 
the  League  of  Nations,  or  what  may  be  his  party  affiliations,  if 
he  is  a true  patriot,  if  he  is  a lover  of  mankind  and  would  seek 
to  lessen  wars  rather  than  increase  wars,  to  get  “The  League, 
the  Nation’s  Danger,”  and  read  it  carefully,  with  a mind  open 
to  the  truth  regardless  of  where  that  truth  may  lead. 

The  book  is  published  for  sale,  and  Bishop  Neely’s  address 
is  Philadelphia,  the  agent  of  the  publication  being  E.  A.  Yeakel, 
1705  Arch  street,  Philadelphia. 

In  giving  this  endorsement  to  this  book,  we  believe  that  we 
are  doing  the  least  that  the  Manufacturers  Record  can  do 
in  calling  the  attention  of  this  country  to  a publication  the 
careful  reading  of  which  by  the  people  of  the  entire  country 
would  bring  about  an  immediate  and  overwhelming  defeat 
of  the  entire  League  scheme. 


25 


Rev.  Cortland  Myers  Again  States  His 
Views  Against  the  League  of  Nations 

In  a telegram  to  the  Manufacturers  Record  from  Roches- 
ter, N.  Y.,  the  Rev.  Cortland  Myers,  D.D.,  one  of  the  foremost 
ministers  of  America,  reiterating  a statement  made  in  a sermon 
quoted  in  part  by  this  paper  last  week,  says : 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  Sept.  4. 
Editor  Manufacturers  Record: 

The  Peace  Treaty  and  League  of  Nations  documents 
were  atheistic  and  do  not  deserve  anything  but  failure. 
The  name  of  God  was  not  in  them  and  no  prayer  was 
ever  offered  at  the  sessions  at  Versailles.  The  pages  of 
history  all  declare  this  as  fatal.  God  will  not  be  for> 
gotten  or  ignored  with  impunity  or  without  penalty,  as 
already  foreseen,  and  these  agreements  are  not  worth 
the  paper  they  are  written  upon.  This  proves  the 
Scriptures  and  all  God’s  relations  to  men.  There  can 
be  no  peace  for  this  world  without  the  recognition  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace,  who  is  still  on  the  throne,  and 
Divine  Judgment  rests  upon  godless  nations. 

CORTLAND  MYERS. 


Published  in  the  Manufacturers  Record  September  9,  1920. 
26 


A Godless  Covenant,  Promoting  Warfare  and  Pre- 
venting Peace,  the  Versailles  Pact  is  Thrice 
Damned  when  it  Proposes  Surrender  of 
Sovereignty  of  America. 

The  League  of  Nations  Covenant  is  not  Godless  only ; it 
also  undertakes  to  alienate  from  the  United  States  an  inalien- 
able thing,  namely,  its  sovereignty.  It  would  take  from  the 
people  of  this  country  their  full  and  free  power  to  use  their 
Government  as  they  see  fit,  and  subject  them  to  the  decisions, 
order  and  authority  of  an  autocratic  council,  over  which  they, 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  exercise  no  direct  authority 
whatever,  and  indirectly  only  the  authority  which  comes  from 
the  possession  of  a single  vote,  to  be  cast  by  a man  in  whose 
selection  the  people  have  had  no  say  and  over  whose  judgments 
they  would  have  no  control. 

That  the  League  Council  is  conceived  in  autocracy,  and  in 
autocracy  only  can  live,  has  been  lately  admitted  by  the  leading 
British  authority,  Lord  Grey,  who  in  an  interview  declared  that 
he  thought  something  ought  to  be  done  to  make  the  League 
Assembly  at  least  have  some  approach  to  democratic  form  by 
permitting  representation  in  it  of  the  peoples  of  the  several 
nations  as  distinguished  from  their  official  Governments. 

The  Assembly  of  the  League  is  mere  molasses  to  catch  flies, 
in  most  cases.  The  whole  theory  underlying  the  League  con- 
templates government  of  the  world  by  a board  of  nine  direct- 
ors, closeted  in  some  sequestered  city,  whose  mandates  and 
decrees  would  blanket  the  earth  and  from  whose  judgments 
there  could  be,  in  practice,  no  sustained  appeal. 

It  is  the  high  prerogative  of  full  sovereignty  to  choose  be- 
tween peace  and  war.  War  is  a temple  at  whose  altars  a 
people  pledge  en  masse  their  lives,  their  fortunes  and  their 
sacred  honor.  It  contemplates  a situation  of  grave  abnor- 

Published  in  Manufacturers  Record,  September  16,  1920. 


27 


mality,  wherein  the  ordinary  pursuits,  rights,  privileges  and 
customs  of  the  people  are  properly  immersed  in  a flood  of 
co-operative  endeavor.  A declaration  of  war  is  notice  to  the 
world  that  a people  have  decided  to  contribute  to  the  common 
good  not  merely  their  substance,  the  usual  cash  contributions 
in  the  form  of  taxes,  but  to  offer  their  lives  as  well.  In  peace 
a man’s  existence  is  his  own ; in  war  it  becomes  the  State’s. 

Unless,  therefore,  there  is  retained  in  a people  their  complete 
and  full  control  over  peace  and'  war,  they  are  stripped  of  a 
transcendent  feature  of  sovereignty.  They  constitute  no 
longer  a free  nation,  but  become  an  international  satrapy. 
They  do  not  learn  their  fate  in  their  own  capital,  but  hang  on 
the  news  that  sparkles  from  the  ends  of  a tenuous  cable.  The 
tremendous  power  they  possess — their  wealth,  their  skill  and 
nerve — they  continue  to  have,  but  they  lose  the  right  to  deter- 
mine how  it  shall  be  employed.  The  nation  remains  a vast 
electric  dynamo,  but  the  hand  that  presses  the  button  that  sets 
the  power  in  motion  is  no  longer  its  own.  There  is  no  skill  of 
phrasemakers  that  can  translate  dependence  into  independence. 
Subordination  is  subordination,  no  matter  how  it  is  spelled  or 
what  the  number  of  the  clauses  that  define  it. 

It  has  not  been  contended  that  the  Covenant  involves  no 
impairment  of  sovereignty.  It  has  been  admitted,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  full  sovereignty  would  be  sacrificed,  and  it  has  been 
argued  that  for  the  greater  good  of  the  world — supposedly  to 
flow  from  the  Covenant — this  nation  should  be  ready  to  make 
that  sacrifice.  The  issue,  therefore,  is  not  of  fact  as  to  whether 
or  not  sovereignty  is  transferred  to  the  League  authority,  but 
is  solely  a question  of  the  willingness  on  our  part  and  the  wis- 
dom of  making  that  great  contribution  to  the  League  experi- 
ment. 

It  is  a point  few  Americans  care  to  argue.  There  is  in- 
grained in  the  consciousness  of  every  native-born  and  native- 
trained  citizen  a belief  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
in  the  Constitution.  The  very  suggestion  of  surrender,  either 
to  armed  enemies  or  to  diplomatic  intrigue,  is  revolting.  There 
are  some  things  that  are  beyond  debate.  Men  do  not  argue 
whether  or  no  wives  should  be  virtuous ; they  do  not  file  briefs 


28 


in  favor  of  theft  and  an  economic  good.  There  are  some  vir- 
tues, feelings,  customs  or  instincts  which  by  the  common  con- 
sent of  mankind  are  accepted  as  axioms  of  behavior,  and  one 
of  the  greatest  of  these  virtues  is  loyalty,  patriotism,  which 
means  complete  allegiance  to  the  co-operative  machinery  of 
government  that  visualizes  the  idiosyncracies,  the  power  and 
the  achievement,  and  the  moral  impulses  of  what  we  call  a 
nation.  The  individual,  for  the  greater  good,  permits  society 
to  judge  between  him  and  those  who  assault  him,  but  the  judg- 
ment is  by  a jury  of  his  peers,  and  the  system  rests  finally  on 
his  vote.  The  nation  is  a trustee,  holding  the  lives  of  its  peo- 
ple in  trust.  It  cannot  gamble  away  those  lives  without  be- 
trayal of  its  trust. 

This  means  there  is  no  authority  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  alienate  in  any  degree  whatever  the  national 
sovereignty.  The  Government  is  itself  a mere  creature  of  the 
sovereign  people,  functioning  only  according  to  definite  rules. 
The  President  and  a unanimous  Congress  with  him  could  not 
by  treaty  undertake  to  change  this  Government  to  a monarchy. 
Vital  changes  of  that  sort  can  be  carried  through  only  by  the 
people  themselves,  by  Constitutional  amendment.  When, 
therefore,  the  President  undertakes  to  change  the  form  of  gov- 
ernment by  stripping  the  people  of  a part  of  their  sovereignty, 
he  undertakes  to  do  something  wholly  beyond  his  powers. 
The  admission  that  the  Covenant  implies  a loss  of  sovereignty 
is  an  admission  that  even  if  the  Senate  ratified  the  Covenant 
would  still  not  be  binding  on  this  people,  because  it  would 
have  been  an  unconstitutional  transaction.  So  great  are  the 
safeguards  which  the  Fathers  threw  about  the  maintenance  of 
our  sovereignty. 

It  is  not  only  in  Article  io,  whereby  we  undertake  to  guar- 
antee in  perpetuity  the  territorial  integrity  and  political  inde- 
pendence of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  in  the  articles  pledg- 
ing us  in  advance  to  economic  warfare  in  specified  circum- 
stances, that  we  are  asked  to  sign  away  our  right  of  sovereign 
decision.  The  whole  Covenant  is  shot  through  and  through 
with  a spirit  and  atmosphere  of  subordination.  The  under- 
lying theory  is,  in  fact,  that  peace  can  be  maintained  by  putting 


29 


in  the  hands  of  nine  men  the  power  and  resources  of  this 
nation  and  of  all  nations.  Unless  such  power  is  made  resident 
in  such  a board,  it  is  stated  that  the  League  would  be  a mere 
debating  society. 

The  Lodge  reservations  are  devised  to  permit  the  fullest — 
perhaps  too  full — participation  by  the  United  States  in  efforts 
to  construct  efficient  machinery  for  the  maintenance  of  peace 
and  to  aid  the  stricken  nations  to  recover  themselves.  They, 
on  the  other  hand,  do  no  more  than  deny  deed  gifts  of  our  sov- 
ereignty. They  do  not  vitiate  or  impair  anything  in  the  Cove- 
nant that  is  good ; they  do  not  even  take  out  of  it  all  that  is 
evil.  They  are  the  composite  effort  of  a number  of  good 
Americans  to  prevent  the  needless  sacrifice  of  American  insti- 
tutions and  rights  in  a purely  speculative  adventure.  If  it  be 
treason  to  prevent  alienation  of  American  sovereignty,  the 
Senate  is  filled  with  traitors  of  both  parties,  and  they  glory  in 
that  sort  of  “treason.” 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  Covenant  is  Godless.  The  wars 
waging  in  Europe  prove  that  it  promotes  war  and  prevents 
peace.  The  President  and  his  friends  have  admitted  that  the 
League  cannot  be  alive  unless  there  is  a surrender  to  it  of  some 
part  of  American  sovereignty.  Any  one  of  the  three  indict- 
ments would  damn  the  instrument  forever.  Combined,  they 
are  an  overwhelming  argument  against  acceptance  of  it  by  the 
United  States. 


30 


Exponent  of  America 

As  the  Exponent  of  America  the  Manufacturers 
Record  is  more  broadly  discussing  the  great  eco- 
nomic questions  of  the  day,  which  relate  not  alone 
to  the  welfare  of  this  country,  but  which  touch  on 
the  business  interests  of  the  world,  than  any  other 
publication  in  America. 

Nowhere  else  can  the  business  man  find  so  broad 
a treatment,  absolutely  unbiased  by  partisanship, 
of  all  the  great  questions  of  labor,  of  business  de- 
velopment and  of  the  problems  which  relate  di- 
rectly to  the  saving  of  America  from  the  dangers 
of  Socialistic  and  Bolshevistic  unrest. 

The  Manufacturers  Record  is  seeking  to  develop 
the  spirit  of  Americanism  as  against  weak  inter- 
nationalism. 

The  Manufacturers  Record  is,  in  its  broadest 
sense,  not  an  industrial  publication,  but  a journal 
of  information,  an  exponent  of  Americanism,  and 
all  that  makes  for  the  safety  of  this  country  from 
the  dangers  which  confront  it. 

We  invite  a careful  study  of  the  Manufacturers 
Record  and  the  work  which  it  is  doing.  No  busi- 
ness man,  it  matters  not  what  may  be  his  business, 
nor  his  profession,  nor  his  place  of  residence,  can 
miss  reading  the  Manufacturers  Record,  the  Ex- 
ponent of  America,  without  missing  much  that  is 
best  in  American  life  today.  Subscription  price, 
$6.50  a year. 

ManufacturersRecord 

Exponent  of  America 
Richard  H.  Edmonds,  Editor 
Baltimore,  Md. 


Photomount 

Pamphlet 

Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 


Makers 

Syracuse,  N.Y. 
Pat.  No.  877188 


